: AS® 
CopV ^ 



A REVIEW 



REV. DOCTOR LORD'S SERMON 



THE HIGHER LAW, 



IX ITS ArrLICATION TO 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, 



BY REV. WILLIMI CAVISNER. 



READ, POXDEE, DECIDE J FOE, " AS A SIAX THIXKETH SO IS HE;" THAT IS, 
A MAN IS NO BETTEE THAX HIS PRIXCIPLES. 



BUFFALO: 
T . AND ]M . BUTLER. 



185L 



TO THE HEADER. 



The following Review is given to the public at the solicita- 
ti'-n of a few ministerial bi-ethren, in whom the author has the 
utmost confidence. It was undertaken with no love for the 
spirit of controversy, but with an earnest desire to subserve 
the cause of truth. All we ask for it, is a careful and candid 
perusal. The reader is under no obligation to adopt our views 
on this or any other subject, any farther than they correspond 
with the revealed Will of God. 



6 3> "8 a ^ 6, i 
1 W M 1 






REVIEW. 



The present is a time of great interest to every Ame- 
rican citizen. It is a time when subjects of the greatest 
importance to our wide-spread and growing Repubhc are 
being re-investigated and discussed, with reference to 
their bearing upon the welfare of the nation, and their 
relation to that system of ethics which has its foundation 
in the word of God. 

The most exciting, and, we may add, at present the 
most important of these subjects is that of American 
slavery. The fact that a system of slavery, involving the 
chattel principle, is interwoven with the very texture of 
our political constitution, that, with all its horrors, it is 
legalized and exists to a large extent in the midst of a 
nation who pride themselves upon their attachment to 
liberty and the doctrine of equal rights, has been con- 
sidered by a large portion of our citizens, a hurning shame, 
and has also been our rejproacli among the civihzed nations 
of the earth. 

For a long period, we were denied the right of discus 
ing the subject in our halls of legislation, and respectful 



petitions, signed by thousands of citizens, praying our 
rulers to consider it and adopt the wisest and best means 
for the final removal of the evil, were without ceremony 
laid on the table, as unworthy the serious attention of so 
grave and dignified a body as the American Congress. 
Bat, for the last two years, this subject has claimed the 
attention of the people and their representatives in every 
part of the land. That it should produce great and gene- 
ral excitement, was to be expected. But that this excite- 
ment will in the end prove disastrous to the country or 
to the slave, we do not believe. Much has been written 
on both sides which is to be regretted ; but surely not 
more than might have been anticipated, when we consider 
the circumstances and heat of the discussion. 

It has, however, developed one fact for which the 
author of these pages was not prepared, and which has 
surprised not merely himself, but many of his brethren. 
It is the fact that so many northern ministers are pre- 
pared to become the apologists of slavery, and have endea- 
vored, in every possible way, to torture the Bible into 
their service. 

We were not surprised at the appointment, by a certain 
class of politicians assembled at Castle garden, of a Union 
Safety Committee, whose ostensible business it is to see 
that the Union he not dissolved, but who are in fact enga- 
ged in catering to the worst passions of Southern politi- 
cians, and doing what they can to perpetuate the "peculiar 
institution" of slavery. But we were surprised to find 
them becoming a sermon puhlishing Committee, — making 
the press and the post-office department groan under the 
weight of productions from eminent northern divines, — 



. and, as if they begrudged the revenue accruing from the 
postage on these productions, getting them franked by 
various members of Congress, and sending them by thou- 
sands, free of charge, to every part of the country. 

One of these franked sermons is now on our table ; and 
as they all bear a marked resemblance to each other, 
showing that they belong to the same family, perhaps we 
cannot better express our views upon the general positions 
they assume, than by a candid and careful review of the 
one before us. It is a sermon delivered by Rev. Dr. 
Lord, of Buffalo, to the people of his charge, on our last 
Thanksgiving day. The title of the discourse is well cho- 
sen to represent its contents. It is entitled, " The Higher 
Law in its Application to the Fugitive Slave Bill.'* Its 
object is to show that, upon the subject of slavery, there 
is no higher law than human constitutions, and that the 
decisions of government, upon this subject at least — no 
matter how oppressive and unrighteous — are, and ought to 
be, final, and should be submitted to and carried out by 
the citizen. 

The passage of Scripture selected, from which to deduce 
such a doctrine, appears to us peculiarly unfortunate. It 
is Matt. 22: 17-21. The history of this passage is fami- 
liar to every reader of the Bible. After a consultation of 
the Pharisees how they might entangle Christ in his talk, 
they sent unto him certain of their disciples, with the 
Herodians, to ask him whether it was lawful to pay tribute 
to Ccesar? This question was wisely selected to lead him 
into difficulty. An answer, either way, was fraught with 
danger. Should he answer in the affirmative, he would 
be in danger from his own countrymen, who, at that time, 



6 

were the conquered vassals of the Roman Empire, and. 
hated, with a perfect hatred, the Roman tribute. Should 
he answer in the negative, he would he in danger of being 
arraigned at Caesar's judgment bar, for promulgating sedi- 
tious and treasonable doctrines. Being guided by wisdom 
from on high, he was at no loss how to extricate himself 
from this difficulty. Instead of giving a direct answer, 
he asked to see the tribute money. They brought him a 
penny. He inquired, "Whose is this image and super- 
scription? Tliey say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he 
unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the tilings that 
are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." 
This was in no proper or strict sense an answer to the 
question proposed, but a most wise and judicious evasion 
of it. Christ, by this answer, did not say that it was 
right to pay tribute to Caesar. The Pharisees did not so 
understand him — if they had, it was all they wanted. 
Nor did he deny the right to pay tribute — if he had, (hat 
was all they desired. He answered them, by stating the 
general principle, that they should render to all their 
dues — to Caesar what belonged to him, and to God what 
belonged to him. Nor does this answer distinguish be- 
tween what belongs to Caesar and what to God. If it 
does, the line of distinction must be, that whatever bears the 
image of Caesar belongs to him, and whatever bears the 
image of God belongs to him — and surely this line would 
subvert entirely the doctrine of the discourse we are con- 
sidering. Suppose the inquiry had been, " Master, is it 
ridit for men to hold then* fellow men in bondage ? Is 
slavery right ? " He repHes, " show me a slave." They 
bring him one. He then asks, " Whose is this image and 



superscription?" What answer must tliey give? Could 
they say that it was Cresar's ? Would they not be com- 
pelled to admit that it was God's? Is not the slave a 
man? And does he not belong to that race who were 
created in the image of God'? If so, he might reply : 
"Render therefore unto God the things that are God's, 
and unto Cresar the things that are Caesar's. Slaves bear 
the image of God. They belong to him and not to the 
government. And government have no right to strip 
them of their humanity, and, by chattelizing them, to 
place them among brutes." 

But we will pass from the text to consider the senti- 
ments maintained in the sermon itself We are told in 
the introduction, that " it does not requh-e very great dis- 
cernment to see, that the continued agitation of the vexed 
question of slavery, must, in the end, sever the bonds 
between the free and the slave states, or render them not 
worth preserving." And has it come to this, that we of 
the North must hold our tongues and lay aside our pens 
on the subject of slavery, or the union will be dissolved? 
We have, heard such threats from Southern pohticians 
until we have ceased to be alarmed. Nor do we believe 
that our fears will be very much stirred by their rej)c- 
Ution by a certain class of northern divines. The sub- 
ject of slavery, like other great subjects, should be dis- 
cussed in a dignified, manly, calm and unheated manner ; 
but that it will continue to be discussed until it is tho- 
roughly sifted — and, if possible, sifted from the BepiiUic — 
we have no doubt. 

There is another sentiment contained in our author's 
introduction, to which we would invite special attention — 



8 

it may be of service in the after review. " The acknow- 
ledged priQciple," he says, " that the law of God is su- 
preme, and when in direct conflict with any mere human 
enactment, renders it nugatory, has been used to justify 
an abandonment of the compromises of the constitution." 
While we do not wish to use this " achiowledged prin- 
ciple" for any such purpose, we are gratified to see it so 
plainly stated, for we think we can find a far better and 
more important end for which it may be used. Here is 
a distinct admission that the law of God is supreme — that 
it is above all human enactments, and that when human 
enactments come in conflict with it, it renders them 
nugatory. Here, then, we have found a law somewhat 
higher than the constitution, unless our author is prepared 
to take the ground that our federal constitution is not a 
mere human enactment. The federal constitution is a 
hio-her law than the constitutions of the several states. 
And why a higher law ? Because it renders nugatory 
any provisions of these constitutions which conflict with 
its provisions. And upon the same principle, according to 
our author's own showing, the law of God is a higher law 
than the federal constitution, or any enactment of Congress. 
Let us place this admission by the side of the main 
and leading position of the sermon, and see to what con- 
clusion it will inevitably lead. " We take the gi-ound," 
says our author, " that the action of civil governments, 
within their appropriate jurisdiction, is final and conclu- 
sive upon the citizen ; and that to plead a higher law to 
justify disobedience to a human law, the subject matter 
of which is ivithin the cognizance of the state, is to reject the 
authority of God himself ; " that is, the citizen is bound 



9 

most scrupulously to obey every enactment of govern- 
ment, no matter how unrighteous and oppressive, provided, 
onhj, it is upon a subject upon which government has a 
right to act at all. This is a most sweeping assertion. 
It admits of but one exception, and that is, where the 
subject of the action is not within the " appropriate juris- 
diction " of the government. The only plea, then, which 
a tender conscience has a right to put in, against the 
action of any human government is, a tvant of jurisdiction. 
It is not allowed to plead that the government has acted 
wrong in a matter where it has any right to act at all. 
The only plea that can be made in justification for not 
obeying a law, is, that it is upon a subject over which the 
government has no jurisdiction, and, consequently, no 
right to act in any manner. 

The position previously taken is, that it is an " acknow- 
ledged principle that the law of God is supreme, and, 
when in direct conflict with any mere human law, renders 
it nugatory y What is the meaning of " nugatory ? " 
If it means any thing in this place, it must mean that, 
under such circumstances, the law has no binding force. 
Upon whom has it no binding force ? Evidently upon 
those on w^iom it would have had a binding force had it 
not come in conflict with the supreme law of God, and all 
such must be the citizens, or subjects, of the government 
by whom the law is enacted. The doctrine here taught 
is, that a mere human enactment may so conflict with the 
supreme law of God as to be rendered nugatory, and thus 
lose its binding force upon the citizen. But we are 
taught by the after and main position, that no mere human 
enactment can be rendered nugatory by the supreme law 



10 

of God, so as not to be final and binding upon the citizen, 
unless it he vpon a subject ivhere government has no right 
to legislate. We do not pretend that these positions 
contradict each other ; but, taken together, they reduce 
the matter to a single point, viz : that governments, in all 
cases where they have an?/ authority, have supreme 
authority, notivithstamling the latv of God. Now this 
must arise from one of two causes : either God has no 
authority whatever in matters belonging to government; 
or the authority of government is superior to that of God. 
But if God has no authority in matters belonging to 
government, either it is true that he never had any such 
authoritv. or it is true that, at some time, he has relin- 
quished this authority in favor of the governments of the 
earth. Nor are we left in the dark as to which of these 
positions is assumed by our learned author. He says 
distinctly, that, " to plead a higher law to justify disobe- 
dience to a human law, the subject matter of which is 
within the cognizance of the state, is to reject the 
authority of God himself !' What is this but saying that 
God, in all such matters, has relinquished his jurisdiction 
to the state, so that, in regard to them, there is no appeal 
from its decisions to himself; and that the citizen who 
dares to attempt such an appeal, is guilty of rejecting the 
authority and appointment of God ? We should like to 
have our author inform us when God made such a relin- 
quishment in favor of the governments of the earth ? 
when he gave them supreme jurisdiction in all matters 
within their cognizance, so that there is no appeal from 
their decisions to himself? We trust that he will not 
shrink from a legitimate consequence of this doctrine, viz : 



11 

that governments, within the sphere of their action, can do 
no ivrong. The catechism of his church teaches that sin 
is the transgression of the law of God; and if God, in all 
matters belonging to government, has relinquished his 
authority, so that, by his appointment, the decisions of 
government, in all such matters, are supreme, fined — under 
all circumstances hinding ; then, surely, government can 
do no ivrong, unless it attempts to meddle with what does 
not concern it. In England the doctrine that the king 
can do no wrong is held to be a fiction in law ; but, it 
seems, that in America, among a certain class of divines, 
this doctrine has become a stern reality. They have come 
to agree, with a single exception, with the infidel Hobbes 
on the foundation of right and wrong. He held that the 
civil Um was its sole foundcdion — that whatever govern- 
ment decided to he right, tvas right, and whatever it decided 
to be tvrong, ivas tvrong. The only difference between 
Hobbes and these divines, on this point, is. that while he 
makes the position universal, they Hniit it to those things 
which come legitimately under the cognizance of govern- 
ment. 

But perhaps it will be said, that we have misunderstood 
our author — that what he means is, to place government 
between God and the subject, so that while governments 
are subject to God, and held responsible by him for their 
wrong decisions — decisions which come in conflict with his 
supreme law — the subject is not held responsible .for obey- 
ing and carrying out these decisions ; yea, he is under 
obligation to obey them. And can it be possible, that our 
author intends to teach that the subject is under obligation 
to obey human laws wliicli are in conflict tvith the Divine 



12 

laiu ? — that while governments will be called to an account 
for enacting such laws, the subject is not only innocent, 
but in the discharge of a most solemn duty when he yields 
obedience to them ? If so, what becomes of his " acknow- 
ledged principle that the law of God is supreme, and when 
in direct conflict with any mere human enactment renders 
it nugatory ?" In what sense is it yingatory, if, while it is 
in conflict with the Di\ine law, the citizen is under obhga- 
tion to obey it ? 

That we have not mistaken the views of our author 
upon this point, will further appear from the foflowing quo- 
tations : — "The decisions of government upon matters 
within theu: jurisdiction, though they may be erroneous, 
are yet, from the necessity of the case, absolute^ " But 
the position we have taken, that the decisions of govern- 
ment arejinal in cases where they have jurisdiction, even 
when mistaken or oppressive," &c. " But in regard to the 
question of a hicfher laiu, which we think we have demon- 
strated, cannot be urged to annul the legislation of a state, 
in relation to any matter properly within its jurisdiction, it 
may be further replied, that it is not yet proved that the 
enactment or recognition of slavery is within the powers 
divinely delegated to governments — that it is against the 
supreme law, and therefore all human legislation is in- 
operative and void." It seems to us that there can be no 
mistake in regard to the teaching of these paragraphs. 
They certainly teach that the decisions of government in 
all matters where it has an?j authority, are final and bind- 
ing upon the citizen, — that in aU such matters there is no 
appeal to a higher Imv ; and that the only way in which 
the decisions of government can come in conflict with the 



13 

Divine law, and thus be rendered " inoperative and void," 
is by being upon subjects which are not properly zvithin its 
jurisdiction. It will be seen, also, by the last paragraph, 
that our author holds that both " the enactment " and " re- 
cognition of slavery" are properly within the jurisdiction 
government, — that it has a right, not only to recognize 
and regulate slavery where it exists, but also to enact it 
into existence where it does not ; and that this right is ab- 
solute, entirely independent of a higher laiv. Here, then, 
we have one of the things which belong exclusively to 
government, and over which God has relinquished all 
control. 

But let us inquire more at large what are the things 
which God has rehnquished to government, and what the 
things which he has retained to himself? This inquiry 
becomes one of vast importance. We surely ought to 
know what hmit God has set to his own authority ; and 
in what particulars the decisions of human governments 
2xe final, absolute, supreme, not subject to the Divine law. 
We are gratified to be able to answer this inquiry in the 
very words of our author: " Governments have jurisdiction 
over men in all affairs which belong pecuharly to the pre- 
sent hfe, — in all the temporal relations which bind socie- 
ties, communities, and famiUes together, in respect to all 
rights of persons and property, and their enforcement by 
penalties." Here, then, are the things which belong to 
the governments of the earth, and over which their au- 
thority is supreme, and their enactments subject to no 
higher law. 

The things which belong to God, and over which He has 
retained authority, are stated as follows : — " In regard to 



14 

his own worship, and the manner in which we are to ap- 
proach him, the Snpreme Governor has given fnll and 
minnte directions. He has revealed Himself, his attri- 
butes, and the great principles of his government, which 
constitute the doctrines of Christianity; and has confer- 
red upon no human authority the right to interfere, by ad- 
ding to or taking from them. IN THE THINGS THAT 
BELONG TO HIIMSELF, God exercises sole and absolute 
jurisdiction, and has, in regard to them, appointed 710 infe- 
rior or delegated authority T Here are some pretty broad 
statements Avhich it may not be amiss to examine with a 
degree of minuteness. We are told that "governments 
have jurisdiction over men in all affairs which belong pe- 
culiarly to the present life!' What does our author mean 
by "affairs which hclong peculiarly to the present lifeV 
Does he mean affairs which terminate with this hfe ? If 
so, he would give to government the ordinances of religion, 
such as a preached Gospel, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, 
&c. Surely this cannot be his meaning. Does he mean 
affeirs, the influence of which terminates wdth this life, and 
which have no bearing upon the hfe to come ? We think 
he would have great difficulty to find any such affairs ; 
and we must "conclude that this is not his meaning. Does 
he mean affairs which are not pecuharly religious, and 
which were instituted more especially for the convenience 
and happiness of man here, than with reference to a prepa- 
ration for eternity ? This would seem to be his meaning, 
and it is the more evident when taken in connection with 
what immediately follows : " in all temporal relations wdiich 
bind societies, communities, and famihes together, in re- 
spect to all rights of person and property." Here " tem- 



15 

poral relations" seem to be used as opposed to spiritual 
relations, by wliich we suppose our author intends relations 
which belong peculiarly to the Christian Church, and have 
especially to do with the Christian rehgion. And this is 
still further evident when we consider what things he de- 
fines as belonging to God. He limits these to " His own 
worship, and the maimer in which we are to approach 
Him," — to " the great principles of His government which 
constitute the doctrines of Christianity." Now if he means 
any thing by this distinction and limitation, he must mean 
that all matters which relate peculiarly/ to the church and 
religion belong to God, and all other matters to govern- 
ment. 

To secure greater distinctness we will ])lace in opposite 
columns the things which belong to God, and those which 
' belong to government. 

Things which belong to God. Things which belong to Government. 

" His own worship aud the manner " All affairs wliich belong peculiarl}' 

in which Ave are to approach Him." to the present life. All the temporal 

" The great principles of His govern- relations which bind societies, comnni- 

ment which constitute the doctrines of nities, and families together: all rights 

Christianity." of person, and of property, and their 

enforcement by penalties." 

Surely God has been very benevolent, and has relin- 
quished to human governments much the largest half of 
His authority. 

It should be recollected that in all matters belonging to 
government, its deci.sions are final and binding upon the citi- 
zen, and there is no appeal to a higher laiv. The sole and 
supreme authority in all these matters, rests with the go- 
vernment. Its decisions, let them be what they may, can- 
not be rendered nugatory by the Divine laiv. God has 
rehnquished aU his jurisdiction in these matters to govern- 
ment ; and what remains for the citizen is implicit obedi- 



16 

ence ; for ^Ho flmd a higher law to justify disohedience to 
a human laiv, the, subject matter of which is ivithin the 
cognizance of the state, is to reject the authority of God 
himself r Why is it " to reject the authority of God 
himself?" Evidently because God has relinquished all 
jurisdiction in such matters to human goveraments, and 
requires implicit obedience on the part of the subject. 
And as God has nothing to do with matters belonging 
to government, so government has nothing to do with mat- 
ters belonging to God — they are entirely independent of 
each other. That is, God has placed himself right where 
the Italians have been endeavoring to place the Pope, — he 
has rehnquished all ci^il authority, and is contenting hun- 
self with mere ecclesiastical rule. Surely " Jacol)ins, Fou- 
rierites. Communists, and Levelers of all sorts," have never 
embraced or pubhshed a doctrine more alarming than this. 
Our author even goes so far as to inform us that upon 
those subjects which belong to him, God has never delega- 
ted any authority to man. His language is so direct and 
exphcit that evasion is impossible. He says, and places 
the sentiment in glaring capitals, that "IN THE THINGS 
THAT BELONG TO HIMSELF, GOD EXERCISES 
SOLE AND ABSOLUTE JURISDICTION, AND HAS 
IN REGARD TO THEM, APPOINTED NO INFE- 
RIOR OR DELEGATED AUTHORITY.* 



* Should our author contend that he means ler/islative jurisdiction 
and authority, we reply, 1st. He does not say so. He says, " sole and 
absolute jurisdiction," not lenislative jurisdiction. He says, "no infe- 
rior or delegated authority}' not 'legislative authority — and surely a 
doctor of divinity ought to know h oxv to say what he means, and not 
say one thing and mean another. 2d. Had he said, legislative jurisdic- 
tion and authority, it is untrue. God claims at least some rights in the 
Sabbath, and in the subjects of murder and theft ; He has taken the 



17 

"We would ask our author, whether the parent has any 
authority over his child in matters of rehgion ? If so, 
from whence does he derive this authority? Certainly 
not from the government, for such matters do not belong 
to it ; and as certainly not from God, for in matters he- 
longing to him he delegates no authority. We would ask 
again, whether the Sessions, Presbyteries, and General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church have any authority ? 
If so, from whence have they derived this authority ? Not 
from the state, for it has no authority in such matters ; not 
from God, for in matters belonging to him he delegates no 
authority. From whence comes our author's authority as 
a minister of the gospel and the pastor of his people? By 
his own showing it can come neither from the state, nor 
from God. From Avhence, then, has he derived it ? 

We would also inquire of our author whether the Sab- 
bath belongs to God, or to government ? If to the former, 
the government has nothing whatever to do with it ; it 
has not even the right to enact laws to enforce its sanctity. 
If to the latter, then government may pass laws requiring 
its violation ; and as such laws are final, the citizen is 
hound to ohejj. 

Marriage, according to our author, belongs to govern- 
ment and not to God, for surely it is one of those " tem- 
poral relations which bind families together" — and if so, 



liberty to legislate upon them amid the awful solemnities of Sinai — and 
yet no sensible man will deny that human governments have the right 
to legislate upon the same subjects, but they must take care that their 
legislation does not conflict with the legislation of God. 

The position of our author, in any aspect, is false as the Koran, and 
if adopted by the ministers of the gospel, Avould make more infidels than 
the united influence of " levelers of all sorts." 



18 

government has a right to abrogate it, and to legahze uni- 
versal concubinage — and its decisions will be final, and 
imperious upon the citizen, there is no appeal to a higher 
km. So government might enact that every man should 
have two wives ; and even here there is no appeal — the 
subject is hound to obey. But perhaps our author wiU 
take the ground that marriage is a spiritual relation and 
belongs to God. It will then follow that governments 
have no right to meddle with it — they have no right to 
enforce or to regulate it. And it becomes a grave ques- 
tion whether any man, or class of men has the right or 
authority to solemnize marriage, — for it belongs to God, 
and in all matters belonging to Him He delegates no au- 
thority. 

To whom do those rights, the violation of which is de- 
nominated theft and murder, belong ? to God, or to go- 
vernment ? If to God, then government has nothing to 
do with them. If to government, then God has nothing 
to do with them. And if government should think proper 
to legalize theft, and murder, its decisions upon these sub- 
jects would hQ final, — there would be no appeal ion higher 
law. Should our author take the ground that the protec- 
tion of human hfe belongs to God, and not to government, 
and should he cite in support of this opinion the fact that 
God has fixed the death penalty to murder, with which 
penalty human governments have no right to interfere, we 
would then ask, who has authority to execute this penalty 
upon the offender ? Not the government ; — for in things 
belonging to God it has no jurisdiction. Not any man or 
angel delegated by God for that purpose,^ for " IN THE 
THINGS BELONGING TO HIMSELF GOD EXEE- 



19 

CISES SOLE AND ABSOLUTE JURISDICTION, 
AND HAS, IN REGARD TO THEM, APPOINTED 
NO INFERIOR OR DELEGATED AUTHORITY." 

We do not see but that we must wait for God to execute 
this penalty in person : and we have a reasonable assu- 
rance that if we wait long enough, he will do it ; for in all 
probability, at some point in the future, the murderer will 
die. 

Our author feels bound to admit that revolution is a 
civil right. " The right of revolution," he says, " is a 
civil right, which can be properly exercised only hy a de- 
cided majority, under circumstances of aggravated oppres- 
sion, and upon a reasonable assurance of success" Here 
the civil right of revolution under certain circumstances is 
admitted. But from whence comes this right ? Not from 
God ; for civil rights do not belong to him. Not from the 
government ; for it would be absurd to suppose the go- 
vernment to confer upon the citizen a right to subvert 
itself 

But let us view this subject of revolution in the light 
of our author's interpretation of Romans xiii : 1 and 2. 
" Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For 
there is no power but of God : the powers that be, are or- 
dained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power 
resisteth the ordinance of God." We are told that this 
passage teaches that in all matters within their cognizance 
^' the powers that be" are supreme, — and to resist them, 
let their course be ever so erroneous and oppressive, is to 
resist the ordinance of God. If this be true, on what does 
our author predicate the right of civil revolution ? Such 
a revolution is certainly resistance to " the powers that 



20 

be," aad if to resist them under any such circumstances is 
to resist the ordinance of God, yea, even " to reject the au- 
thority of God himself," on what does he predicate this 
right ? Does he predicate it on the fact that the gOTern- 
ment has been gi-iilty of " aggi-avated oppression ?" Surely 
this can form no just cause for resistance, for we are taught 
by him, that in all matters over which government has ju- 
risdiction, its decisions are final, aud subject to no higher 
LAW. Does he predicate it on the fact that a decided 
majority are in its favor ? Then it follows that wliile 
minorities are forbidden to resist the ordinance of God, 
" decided majorities," may resist it, and the sin consists not 
in the act, but in the want of numbers on the part of 
those engaged in it. Does he predicate it on the fact that 
there is " a reasonable assurance of success ?" It foUows 
then that while it is unlawful to resist the ordinance of 
God, without "a reasonable assurance of success," with 
such assurance resistance is entirely lawful, and the sin 
consists, not in committing the act, but in committing it 
without " a reasonable assurance of success." We have of- 
ten heard it said, that " assurance is every tiling," but after 
all, we did not think it was quite as much, as tliis makes 
it to be. Is it not evident that the passage under consi- 
deration, has been misconceived, and misapphed by our 
author, and that it was never intended to teach, so absurd 
and untenable a doctrine as he has endeavored to sustain 
by it ? But here the inquiry arises, if our author has mis- 
taken the import of tliis passage, what does it mean ? 
This and similar passages teach something, and what do 
they teach ? They declare government to be in some 
sense an ordinance of God, and enjoin subjection, and obe- 



21 

dience to it. In "U'liat sense is government an ordinance 
of God, and how far are we bound to obey its require- 
ments ? These questions, we shall endeavor to answer, 
and if we fail to satisfy the reader, we have the consola- 
tion, that there is a " higher law" than our opinion, and 
that he is under no obligation to adopt it as his own. 

That the reader may have them distinctly before his 
mind, we will here insert the two principal passages upon 
this subject. " Let every soul be subject unto the higher 
powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers 
that be, are ordained (ordered) of God. Whosoever there- 
fore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God : 
and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. 
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evU. 
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power ? Do that which 
is good and thou shalt have praise of the same : For he is 
the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that 
which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth not the sword in vain, 
for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath, 
upon him that doeth evil. Whereupon we must needs be 
subject, not only for wrath (for fear of the penalty,) but 
also for conscience sake." Rom. XIII: 1-5. " Submit j-our- 
self to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether 
it be to the King, as supreme ; or unto Governors, as unto 
them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil 
doers, and for the praise of them that do well." 1. Peter 
II : 13, 14. In the JBrst passage, upon the sentence " The 
powers that be are ordained (ordered) of God," the learned 
Bloomfield remarks, "By this it is only meant, that 
they are permitted to hold the office they hold, by the 
disposing Providence of God ; though mediately appointed, 



22 

by the authority, and invested with it, by the consent of 
man." 

It is worthy of notice, that while Paul calls " the powers 
that be," or the then existing government, an ordinance of 
God, Peter calls it an ordinance of man. Nor are these 
statements contradictory. They were made of different as- 
pects of the same thing. It is true of an existing govern- 
ment, that in one sense it is an ordinance of God, and in 
another sense an ordinance of man. For as Bishop San- 
derson very justly observes, "the siilsfmice of the power of 
every magistrate is the ordinance of God ; but the specifi- 
catioji of the citxtmistances thereto heIongin(/,as in regard of 
places, persons, titles, continuance, jurisdiction, subordina- 
tion, and the rest, is a himan ordinance introduced ly 
custom or positive laioT 

In the sentence of Paul " Whosoever resisteth the pow- 
er," &c., the word rendered " resisteth" is antitassomenos. 
It is used but five times in the New Testament, viz. in 
Acts 18:6, " And Avhen they opposed themselves, and blas- 
phemed ;" in James 4:6," Resist the Devil and he will 
flee from thee ;" in James 5 : 6, " Ye have condemned and 
killed the just, and he doth not resist you;" in 1 Peter 5 : 
5, " For God resisteth the proud," &c., and in the passage 
now under consideration. It will at once be perceived that. 
in every instance, it implies determined and active hostility. 
Prof Robinson renders it " to array oneself against." 
Bloomfield translates this sentence, " He who sets himself 
in array against." Every Greek scholar knows that this 
word has a far more active signification than can possibly 
be implied in merely omitting to obey the precept of the 
law, and as a consequence, submitting to suffer the penalty* 
It would seem then that the submission enjoined in this 



passage, is, that which is opposed to arraying one's self 
against the Government. It does not necessarily imply 
obedience to law in every supposable case. But in every 
case it does imply obedience, or a peaceable submission to 
suffer the penalty. They to whom the Apostle wrote, were 
to yield imphcit obedience, when they conscientiously could; 
and in those cases where the human law conflicted with 
the law of God, so that, with them, obedience was morally 
impossible, they were to submit to suffer the penalty. This 
subjection the Apostle would have them render not mainly 
through fear of the penalty, but " for conscience sake." 
And surely it could not be for conscience sake, if the subjec- 
tion required included obedience to a law which conflicted 
with the Divine law, and thus did violence to an enlight- 
ened and tender conscience. 

There was great need that the early converts to Chris- 
tianity should be instructed and exhorted on the duty of 
subjection to rulers : for the spirit of sedition, against their 
Roman conquerors, was deeply seated in the hearts of the 
Jews, and the GentUe converts were in danger of feehng 
that they were under no obhgation to be in subjection to 
heathen magistrates. The Apostles, to guard them against 
sedition and misrule, enjoined submission to " the powers 
that be," as to an ordinance or appointment of God. They 
taught that Government was ordained for the good of the 
people, and that the magistracy was appointed for the pun- 
ishment of evil doers, and " for the praise of them that 
do well." For, says Paul, " Rulers are not a terror to good 
works but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the 
power ? Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise 
of the same : For he is the minister of God to thee for 



24 

good. But if thou do that which is evil be afraid ; for he 
beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, 
a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." 
This is a graphic description of the end or design of all 
government, and of what rulers are ordained or appointed 
to be. But when they pervert the ends of justice, and 
enact wicked laws, which onght not to be obeyed, the sub- 
ject, up to the time when a revolution becomes expedient 
or necessary, must submit to suffer the penalty. 

Government, when viewed separate from its forms, is of 
universal obligation. Its necessity is founded in the nature 
of things. It is so ordained of God that society cannot 
exist without it. Society can no more do without govern- 
ment, than the individual can do without food. But it 
should always l3e borne in mind that government is ordain- 
ed for the people, and not the people for government. As 
a man eats to live, instead of living to eat, so the people are 
governed that they may exist, instead of existing to be 
governed. 

God has so far ordained a form to government, that the 
last cannot exist without the first. It is as impossible for 
government to exist without a form, as it is for society to 
exist without government. But God has never so ordained 
the form of government, as to make any particular form 
binding upon the nations of the earth. We do not beheve 
in the Divine right of either kings or republics. God 
has left the particular form of government to the choice of 
the people, and the circumstances of each individual case. 
He has given to tribes and nations, the civil right to choose 
their own form of government, and to change that form, 
whenever, in their opinion, there exist good and sufficient 



25 

reasons for so doing. But it should be kept in mind, that 
this right does not belong to the individual, nor to minor- 
ities, but to the body pohtic — to the great mass Avhich con- 
stitute the people at large, and that it should never be 
exercised, unless there is a reasonable prospect of success, 
nor unless there is a prospect that to succeed will not cost 
more blood and treasure, than the change is worth. While 
we believe that aggravated oppression is a sufficient and 
perhaps the very best reason for revolutions, we also hold 
that there are other good reasons. It is left for the people 
themselves to decide when such reasons exist, and then 
they may lawfully revolutionize or change their form of 
government. Should the Enghsh nation almost unani- 
mously conclude that to change their form of government 
to a republic, would vastly promote their happiness and 
prosperity, and should the change be opposed only by a few 
individuals in power, would they not have a right to eficct 
such a change ? Should the British Provinces on this con- 
tinent conclude that it would be greatly to their advantage 
to separate from the Mother Country, and establish a gov- 
ernment of their own, and that this result could be secured 
at comparatively a small cost, would they not have a right 
to attempt the change ? 

But, under a government where no reason exists for such 
a change, this doctrine of revolution has no practical bear- 
ing upon the citizen. In such ckcumstances, the govern 
ment is to enact the laws and execute them. And the 
duty of the citizen is implicit subjection. The ordained 
rulers, are God's ministers to promote righteousness, and to 
seek the good of the people. If they abuse their high 
position, and use it for sinister purposes, they must answer 



26 

to Jeliovali himself. They are supposed to have a judg- 
ment and conscience of their own, and are bound to enact 
such laws as are in conformity to the law of God, and will 
promote the best interests of the nation. They are not 
bound by the judgment and conscience of the subject. 
Such a doctrine carried out would subvert the very pillars of 
government. It would produce the worst kind of anarchy 
and misrule. It is, however, wisdom on the part of rulers 
in the enacting of laAvs, and as a matter of favor, to have 
regard to the consciences of their subjects, as far as is con- 
sistent with the great ends of government. It is upon 
this principle that the Quakers are exempted from bearing 
arms, and this duty is commuted to the payment of a 
certain sum of money. It is upon this principle that the 
individual who cannot conscientiously take the oath on the 
Bible, is allowed to take it by the uplifted hand. But this 
indulgence must not be carried too far. The Legislature of 
the state of New York, a few years since, enacted a law 
exempting the seventh day Baptists from legal process on 
Saturday. But they soon found it would not answer, and 
at the next session repealed it. 

Here it may be inquired if the judgment and conscience 
of the government come in conflict with the judgment and 
conscience of the subject, what then is to be done ? We 
answer — that if merely their judgments conflict upon mat- 
ters which have nothing to do with the conscience, the 
subject is bound to submit in the direction of obedience. 
No matter how unwise he may consider a law, if it be not 
wicked he is bound to obe?/ it. So in all cases where the 
subject is not clear in his own mind, that the thing requhed 
is wrong, we think the fact that the government com- 



27 

mands it, should decide liim in favor of obedience. Bitt 
where the conscience of the subject comes clearly in con- 
flict with the enactments of government, neither should 
yield. Surely the government must not yield. Such a 
doctrine would be fraught with the most dreadful conse- 
quences. The government is bound to execute its laws, 
notwithstanding the conscience of the subject. Nor must 
the subject yield in the direction of obedience, but he is 
bound peaceably to submit to suffer the penalty.* This 
we beheve to have been the doctrine and practice of Paul 
and the other Apostles : This we hold should be the doc- 
trine and practice of all good citizens, and especially of the 
ministers of Christ. 

The pulpit is a most powerful moral agency, and 
great care should be taken to give it a right direction. It 
requires a well balanced mind to maintain a truly conser- 
vative position. By which we mean, not a " say nothing 
and do nothing'' position, but a position, which, under all the 
circumstances, will, to the greatest possible extent, conserve 
the rights and privileges of all. The people should be 



* This suhmitting to si(ffer the penalty is not, as has been recently 
taught by an American Divine, honoring the law. He says, " If I can- 
not, with a good conscience, honor the law by obeying it, then will I 
honor it by suffering the penalty." A queer way this to honor the 
law. We can understand how government honors the law by injlict- 
ing the penalty, but we cannot understand how the culprit honors the 
law by suffering the penalty. Much less does that man honor the law, 
who suffers its penalty for conscience' sake, because he thinks the law 
so base, that he cannot obey it. Did Daniel, or " the three children," 
honor those laws which forbade the worship of the true God, and com- 
manded the practice of idolatry, by refusing to obey them, and sub- 
mitting to suffer the penalty ? Did they not, by such a course, rather 
bear the most positive testimony against those laws ? We are much 
mistaken, if, when " driven to the wall," the learned divine woidd not 
find it difficult to maintain his position. 



28 

taught submission to government. This duty cannot be too 
often or too powerfully inculcated ; but they should also 
be taught that when human laws conflict with the Divine 
law, they are " to obey God rather than man." The true 
doctrine, under such circumstances, has been correctly 
stated to be, ''^non-resistance to man, lid obedience to 
Godr * It is impossible to make good citizens by making 
bad christians. So, also, our rulers should be made to feel 
that they are God's ministers for good to those over whom 
they preside ; that they have been ordained or appointed 
by him to be " a terror to evil doers and a praise to them 
that do well;" and that if they pervert the ends of jus- 
tice, and oppress the subject, God holds them responsible, 
and will call them to an account. Things have come to 
a strange pass when ministers of the Gospel teach that 
governments, in matters belonging to them, are not ame- 
nable to God, and that the citizen owes sole allegiance to 
" the rulers of his people." "When the pulpit speaks a 
language lil^e this, it is no wonder that " the kings of the 
earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, 
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, ' Let 
us break their bands asunder, and cast away then" cords 
from us.'" How very different is the teaching of the 
Psalmist, who, with so much beauty and power, enjoins 
upon all rulers to " kiss the sou (submit to his authority) 
lest he be angry, and they perish from the way, when his 
wrath is kindled but a little." 



* An exceedingly able and eloquent sermon, by our much esteemed 
friend and brother Rev. S. T. Spear, of Brooklyn. It came to our 
table while Ave were writing on the same subject. We are charmed 
with its manner and matter. It is " multum in parvo" on the subject 
of the citizen's duty to his God and country. 



29 

The first impression of the careful reader, w'hile peru- 
sing the sermon now under review, will be that of amaze- 
ment, that a christian pastor should teach such sentiments. 
But after an examination so close and critical as to see 
mirrored in its pages the mental attributes of its author, 
his amazement will give place to a conviction that it is 
the legitimate effect of a corresponding cause. It is evi- 
dently the production of a mind, in its action fervid, rapid, 
and oftentimes erratic — a mind sufficiently capacious and 
ambitious to grapple with subjects of the greatest impor- 
tance, but not sufficiently careful in the examination of its 
premises, and, alas! too hasty in leaping to its conclu- 
sions — a mind exceedingly brilliant, and in many respects 
fascinating, but which fi^ecj[uently pours fi'om its ample 
storehouse, in a crude, undigested, and unquahfied manner, 
the first impressions of thoughts which others have taken 
a hfetime to mature. 

Judging from the production before us, we would not 
be surprised if in six months time our author should pub- 
lish another sermon to show that the Deity, since his 
refinquishment of all civil authority to human govern- 
ments, is so delighted with the leisure he enjoys, that he 
has concluded to retire entirely from the aflairs of the 
universe, and to relinquish his ecclesiastical rule in favor 
of the Presbyterian General Assembly. But we will not 
attempt to pierce the future. " Sufficient unto the day is 
the evil thereof." 

We do not intend, in this review, to enter npon the 
Bible argument on the subject of slavery. To do this, 
would swell its pages beyond its designed hmit. Xor is 
there any necessity that we should ; for our author has 



30 

not (lone it. He has contented himself with bold and 
unqnalified assertions, and we are not bound to conclude 
that his assertions, without proof, are any more convincing 
than our own. Besides, we are too well acquainted with 
the laws of controversy, and the advantages of our present 
position, to care to change positions with him. We are 
unwOHng, by entering a field which, in this sermon, he has 
neglected to explore, to throw him upon the defensive. 
Should he think proper to publish an argument to show 
that the Bil)le upholds slavery, we are prepared then to 
meet him. We have carefully examined the subject, and 
believe we can show that the Old Testament no more sus- 
tains slavery than it does polygamy, or the offensive 
slaughter of nations ; and that Christ and his disciples 
have, neither by their precept nor example, given the 
least sanction to any system of cliaUdizing human beings. 
We never have been a technical abohtionist, but we 
have no sympathy with the fugitive slave bill. Even 
admitting that "the compromises of the constitution" 
rendered necessary some law upon the subject, and that 
the national legislature are the body to enact it, there was 
no necessity for such a law. Upon the supposition that 
slavery is lawful, several of the provisions of this bill do 
great violence to some of the plainest principles of natural 
justice. We do not design to examine it " in extenso," 
but will refer, in illustration of the truth of our statement, 
to that unprecedented provision in section eighth, by which 
the commissioner is to receive for his services ten dollars 
if he finds against the individual claimed as a fugitive, 
and only five dollars if he finds in his favor. Is it worth 
any more to the commissioner — does it cost him any more 



trouble and expense, to decide against the supposed fugi- 
tive than to decide for him ? * Or does the government, in 
this " land of the free," hold that a decision in favor of sla- 
very is worth just twice as much as one in favor of liberty ? 
If not, how else can we Yievf this extra allowance than as 
a bribe against freedom ? What would we think of a law 
wliich should offer the judge, who is trying a fellow-citizen 
for murder, twenty dollars for liis services, provided he 
acquits him, but fortf/ dollars if he convicts him ? Could 
the extra allowance of twenty dollars be otherwise viewed 
than as a bribe offered by the government to the judge 
against the prisoner, and in favor of his conviction ? How 
long would the people endure such a law ? Surely no 
longer than until it could be constitutionally repealed. 
But it may be said, the two cases differ. We admit it. 
In the one case, the probabilities are in favor of the priso- 
ner's being ivhite, in the other, they are in favor of his 
being Uach. In the one case life, and in the other liberty, 
is put in jeopardy — and we will leave it for the reader to 
decide if he would not prefer Death to Sla^tjry. 

Much, however, as weare opposed to the fugitive slave 
bill, we would by no means sanction forcible resistance 
from any quarter — not even from the slave. But with 
this remark, we would also say, that in our opinion, there 
is a wide distinction, between the natural right of the pur- 
sued fugitive to resist, and the right of the citizen to advise 
him so to do, and that there is hkewise, a marked differ- 



* Should it be said that it is more trouble for the commissioner to 
make out a certificate of delivery than to record a decision of discharge, 
we answer, that the difference, if there be any, must be trifling; and 
no one will pretend that it is worth as much as the whole previous in- 
vestio-ation. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



Q9 - ,„,„, 

011 837 242 6» 

enee between, the slave's right to resist, and the expediency 
of such a course. Forcible resistance from any source, 
would be ill-advised and exceedingly unwise — from the 
citizen it would be as criminal as unwise. Under a go- 
vernment like ours, a government of such chartered privi- 
leges, the press and the ballot-box are far better and more 
efficient weapons of reform, than the bayonet and the 
sword. In our Eepubhc, the will of the people is omnipo- 
tent. If they desire the repeal or modification of this law 
it will be done. If they do not desire it, seriously to talk, 
or even to think of resistance, would be absurd. 

We beheve the days of slavery are numbered. The 
" pecuhar institution" has become decrepit with age. The 
deep furrows upon its brow, are the umnistakable marks 
of a sure decay. The time is not far distant when it will 
be sepulchered for ever. Causes are in operation which 
must "produce this result. It is our duty, as citizens, calmly, 
judiciously, decidedly, and perseveringly to do what we 
lawfully can to aid the operation of these causes. But we 
should be careful, not to outrun the Providence of God, 
nor should we allow Providence to outrun us. We should 
bear in mind that its ponderous wheel is surely revolving 
upon its axis. God holds it in his hand, and directs its 
movements with imerring wisdom. In its revolution, it 
most certainly will crush every system of slavery. If we 
do not see it, our children may. We sincerely pray that lie 
who is not merely the Bishop of bishops, but also " the King 
of kings, and the Lord of lords," will, in infinite mercy, has- 
ten the period : — ''And let all the people say, AMEN." 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 837 242 6 



I 



